4 ms·

A huge portion of people don't need a massive upstream. This sounds more expensive for basically no benefit (for most)

by kulahan 3y ago

ceejayoz 3y ago
A lot of people need enough for at least a steady Zoom/FaceTime call, and that's only going to increase over time.
- dylan604 3y ago
  potentially multiple simultaneously if mom&dad have separate jobs with kids attending classes. asymmetrical is as antiquated as dial-up. there's no reason for it in 2023.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  You don't need more than 10 mb for that though. How often are people uploading 1+ GB? For me at least the answer is never.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Not many are using gigabit upstream, but Spectrum’s 300 megabit down plans in my area come with like 20 megabit up. I’d get noticeable stutter in calls if I browsed the web during one. Thankfully synchronous gigabit fiber came this year.
  - zerd 3y ago
    If I take a video on my phone and sync it to the cloud that's easily more than that. And if that takes up the whole 10 Mbit, video calls get unusable.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dpkirchner 3y ago
Let's pitch symmetrical, let them counter with 20Mbit up per 100Mbit down, and call it a victory.
- dylan604 3y ago
  i think you're about 1/5 the minimum speeds we should be countering. 100mbps up, 1000mbps down
  - dpkirchner 3y ago
    I just noticed the document does prescribe 100 down, 20 up. Mb. And yeah, I could go for a gigabit minimum.
asstrotrash 3y ago
The majority of people is not the qualifier here for this argument. It's what is actually a good definition for the term "broadband" in this time and age.
- kulahan 3y ago
  A good definition shouldn't apply to the majority of people?
  - hn_acker 3y ago
    > A good definition shouldn't apply to the majority of people? If "good definition of minimum broadband speed", then "applies to the majority of people". The converse is not true. It is not the case that if "applies to the majority of people", then "good definition of minimum broadband speed." 1. Whether a speed applies to a majority of people is necessary but not sufficient. 2. You are unknowingly accepting being ripped off. It's not reasonable for big ISPs like Comcast to offer me 300 megabits download 15 megabits upload for $70 a month (might've been $90, but assume $70) while EPB of Chattanooga [1] offers 1 gigabit symmetrical for $67.99 a month. What speed any individual actually needs doesn't have to come into the picture. In matters of consumer protection, the principle of the thing matters just as much as actual consumer needs. Today's internet technology (particularly optical fiber [2], paired with hardware implementing DOCSIS 3.1 or 4 [3]) is fully capable of providing 1 gigabit symmetrical for "the majority of people", even in rural areas. Moreover, in the long term, transitioning to fiber would be less expensive to the big ISPs like Comcast [4], but Comcast keeps raising prices on broadband over decades-old copper wires and committing subsidy fraud [5]. Don't let big ISPs define "good enough" to be much lower than technology and the price of the technology allow. Going by the Chattanooga metric, 100 mbps symmetrical should cost no more than $10, and anything lower is not a good definition of minimum broadband speed for the present (never mind the future). [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/why-fiber-vastly-superior-cable-and-5g https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/why-fiber-vastly-super... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Versions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Versions [3] https://epb.com/fi-speed-internet/gig/ https://epb.com/fi-speed-internet/gig/ [4] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/why-slow-networks-really-cost-more-fiber https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/why-slow-networks-real... [5] Pick any one of these links. https://www.techdirt.com/2020/10/06/mississippi-says-att-took-283-million-network-it-never-fully-deployed/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/10/06/mississippi-says-att-too... https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/15/report-shows-comcast-continues-to-lie-about-its-broadband-coverage/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/15/report-shows-comcast-con... https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/16/verizon-t-mobile-overstate-wireless-coverage-to-nab-billions-in-undeserved-subsidies/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/16/verizon-t-mobile-oversta... --------Everything below this line is bonus.-------- The following excerpt is from an article about data caps [6] but applies equally well to the state of broadband pricing in general. > Network congestion arguments in this debate operate on an unsubstantiated and uncontextualized assumption of scarcity — there is only so much bandwidth, and a few people are going to use it all. Yes, some network congestion arguments have prevailed with wireless broadband because of the atmospherical and technical limitations of the medium. However, congestion is not as consequential for fixed broadband. Broadband providers reason that instead of limiting these internet “super-users” (which would be discriminatory and litigated accordingly), they need to implement data caps for all consumers, which they claim is fair and unbiased. However, scarcity is not a reality for broadband providers, even with super-users. Internet functions by “statistical multiplexing” meaning that bandwidth is dynamically allocated and reused without a limit “[u]nlike other utilities such as water, electricity, gas or oil.” [6] https://publicknowledge.org/no-cap-the-truth-about-data-caps-and-zero-rating/ https://publicknowledge.org/no-cap-the-truth-about-data-caps...
gtvwill 3y ago
Bs. Not sure why you think it but every system has cloud backup these days, folks regularly broadcast multiple video streams at once from home and a plethora of other activities that require upload. Please stop spreading such misinformation as its an unnecessary expense. It costs zero dollars for upload stop cucking it because you don't understand its use.

A huge portion of people don't need a massive upstream. This sounds more expensive for basically no benefit (for most)

ceejayoz 3y ago

A lot of people need enough for at least a steady Zoom/FaceTime call, and that's only going to increase over time.

dylan604 3y ago
potentially multiple simultaneously if mom&dad have separate jobs with kids attending classes. asymmetrical is as antiquated as dial-up. there's no reason for it in 2023.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
You don't need more than 10 mb for that though. How often are people uploading 1+ GB? For me at least the answer is never.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Not many are using gigabit upstream, but Spectrum’s 300 megabit down plans in my area come with like 20 megabit up. I’d get noticeable stutter in calls if I browsed the web during one. Thankfully synchronous gigabit fiber came this year.
- zerd 3y ago
  If I take a video on my phone and sync it to the cloud that's easily more than that. And if that takes up the whole 10 Mbit, video calls get unusable.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dpkirchner 3y ago

Let's pitch symmetrical, let them counter with 20Mbit up per 100Mbit down, and call it a victory.

dylan604 3y ago
i think you're about 1/5 the minimum speeds we should be countering. 100mbps up, 1000mbps down
- dpkirchner 3y ago
  I just noticed the document does prescribe 100 down, 20 up. Mb. And yeah, I could go for a gigabit minimum.

asstrotrash 3y ago

The majority of people is not the qualifier here for this argument. It's what is actually a good definition for the term "broadband" in this time and age.

kulahan 3y ago
A good definition shouldn't apply to the majority of people?
- hn_acker 3y ago
  > A good definition shouldn't apply to the majority of people? If "good definition of minimum broadband speed", then "applies to the majority of people". The converse is not true. It is not the case that if "applies to the majority of people", then "good definition of minimum broadband speed." 1. Whether a speed applies to a majority of people is necessary but not sufficient. 2. You are unknowingly accepting being ripped off. It's not reasonable for big ISPs like Comcast to offer me 300 megabits download 15 megabits upload for $70 a month (might've been $90, but assume $70) while EPB of Chattanooga [1] offers 1 gigabit symmetrical for $67.99 a month. What speed any individual actually needs doesn't have to come into the picture. In matters of consumer protection, the principle of the thing matters just as much as actual consumer needs. Today's internet technology (particularly optical fiber [2], paired with hardware implementing DOCSIS 3.1 or 4 [3]) is fully capable of providing 1 gigabit symmetrical for "the majority of people", even in rural areas. Moreover, in the long term, transitioning to fiber would be less expensive to the big ISPs like Comcast [4], but Comcast keeps raising prices on broadband over decades-old copper wires and committing subsidy fraud [5]. Don't let big ISPs define "good enough" to be much lower than technology and the price of the technology allow. Going by the Chattanooga metric, 100 mbps symmetrical should cost no more than $10, and anything lower is not a good definition of minimum broadband speed for the present (never mind the future). [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/why-fiber-vastly-superior-cable-and-5g https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/why-fiber-vastly-super... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Versions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Versions [3] https://epb.com/fi-speed-internet/gig/ https://epb.com/fi-speed-internet/gig/ [4] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/why-slow-networks-really-cost-more-fiber https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/why-slow-networks-real... [5] Pick any one of these links. https://www.techdirt.com/2020/10/06/mississippi-says-att-took-283-million-network-it-never-fully-deployed/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/10/06/mississippi-says-att-too... https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/15/report-shows-comcast-continues-to-lie-about-its-broadband-coverage/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/15/report-shows-comcast-con... https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/16/verizon-t-mobile-overstate-wireless-coverage-to-nab-billions-in-undeserved-subsidies/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/16/verizon-t-mobile-oversta... --------Everything below this line is bonus.-------- The following excerpt is from an article about data caps [6] but applies equally well to the state of broadband pricing in general. > Network congestion arguments in this debate operate on an unsubstantiated and uncontextualized assumption of scarcity — there is only so much bandwidth, and a few people are going to use it all. Yes, some network congestion arguments have prevailed with wireless broadband because of the atmospherical and technical limitations of the medium. However, congestion is not as consequential for fixed broadband. Broadband providers reason that instead of limiting these internet “super-users” (which would be discriminatory and litigated accordingly), they need to implement data caps for all consumers, which they claim is fair and unbiased. However, scarcity is not a reality for broadband providers, even with super-users. Internet functions by “statistical multiplexing” meaning that bandwidth is dynamically allocated and reused without a limit “[u]nlike other utilities such as water, electricity, gas or oil.” [6] https://publicknowledge.org/no-cap-the-truth-about-data-caps-and-zero-rating/ https://publicknowledge.org/no-cap-the-truth-about-data-caps...

gtvwill 3y ago

Bs. Not sure why you think it but every system has cloud backup these days, folks regularly broadcast multiple video streams at once from home and a plethora of other activities that require upload. Please stop spreading such misinformation as its an unnecessary expense. It costs zero dollars for upload stop cucking it because you don't understand its use.